skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> now there's only one thing that can fail

That's the sticking point. People tend not to think of mechanical systems as systems full of many components any one of which can fail, but they are.

In the case of the gas nozzle, you have the orifice for the airflow which can get blocked, you have the diaphragm which can break, you have the connection to the lever which can sever, you have the lever itself which can bind. Critically if it does fail, it fails catastrophically - gas spills everywhere.

On the other hand consider a system employing a capacitive level sensor. When the sensor comes into contact with fluid, the dialectric constant changes and thus the voltage drop across the sensor increases to the point the valve will close itself. If anything goes wrong, say you lose power or a wire breaks or someone physically rips the nozzle off, the voltage still decreases below the cutoff threshold so the valve still closes - it fails safe.

People like mechanical systems because they are easy to visualize, but that's not the same as being simple or safe. At the same time, most of our experience with electronics is with low cost consumer electronics where the price of failure is low and there is strong financial incentive to use cheap components with short life expectancies in configurations that aren't fail-safe, so we tend to associate electronics with being unreliable.

But on a fundamental level, the force stopping two gears from passing through each other is exactly the same as the one producing a current when you apply a voltage to a piece of copper.
I thought they already had a bot that posts stats on mentions in the daily thread?

Also, you need to look at why it's being mentioned. Something that you want to buy puts on may be popular, but it's a different play than just buying shares or calls.
Robinhood was the first.
This is a shitty decision.
What Robinhood is doing now is unethical and illegal. By limiting to users to only selling these stocks Robinhood is manipulating the market.

Citadel is a major source of funding for Robinhood. Citadel owns Melvin Capital Management. Melvin Capital Management is on the hook for billions in losses for their GameStop shorts.

How can it be more clear than this? People should be warned away Robinhood after this. Robinhood & Citadel should both be sued for manipulation of securities.
I get that people are pissed, but this is exactly the same thing that the Qanon idiots were doing - going along with the wildest theories and calling anyone who questioned them complicit. By doing so, they destroyed their entire movement and the cause they were fighting for.
https://element.io/get-started

I wouldn't even mention Matrix to get someone started. But this page will lead them to the Web App and mobile apps. By default they will sign you up to the matrix.org homeserver with E2E encryption. It is a great way to get people started. You can then send them a link to your profile or they can find you be email or phone number if you have verified those.
DeGiro is still good. Bought GME there today.
So I keep reading reports about how hookworms are like a super cure for autoimmune disorders from allergies to Crohn's disease. Does anyone know why we can't just inject, ingest, or apply whatever it is that they emit? Like...why is there not a treatment for eczema yet better than steroid creams?
Retail Traders Sue Robinhood over Meme Stock Restrictions
I saw some mild Bloomberg articles. Not sure how they source their stories. Haven't seen anything that defends retail investors though.
Protip, the people doing more work would have been doing everyone else's work in the office. They are the ones that get stuff done and often get no attention for it, because doing everyone else's work is hard to quantify.
I'm not sure disallowing buying this stock is worthy of a lawsuit. However forcibly closing people's positions who already are long on GME like some are reporting on Twitter[1] certainly seems like a great reason to be sued.

[1] - https://twitter.com/joemccann/status/1354859879337320452
It seems difficult to come up with a pro that balances being disappeared for four months for criticizing the government.
Alpaca sent me a notice this morning that they are also restricting trades. It's network behavior like this that is troubling.
> The regulators are on the side of the financial institutions since the unusual activity is coming from retail traders.

I call BS. I mean you might be right that they are on the side of the institutions, but it's not because retail is unusual, it's because it's a big old boys club and they don't want the plebs getting uppity. MM's exposed themselves by massively naked short selling into very risky territory, which is illegal and what the regulators should be more interested in, as it is what enabled all this to happen in the first place!(1)

It's well known that the SEC is a toothless wonder that doesn't go after the malfeasance right under it's nose but loves to go after middle and low end people, with maybe a smattering of high profiles just for the optics (come to think of it, very much like the IRS). The legal system is part of that corruption. So you may be right that the legal positions are shoring up on their side (though I think its very possible you are wrong), but that doesn't make it the right, or just, state of things!

I think we are living in a moment of history that will lay bare just how abusive and illegally manipulative the whole system is against retail and there is going to be a backlash that isn't inconsequential.

[1] https://www.sec.gov/answers/nakedshortsale.htm
You’re just describing the process of how all that software became commoditized. Software the everybody needs to use is simply a commodity now, and that’s why the more generically useful something is, the more open source support it’s going to have. Companies (usually) don’t want to build their own infrastructure, the want to spend their money investing in their value adds, because that’s where they get their RoI. A company could build their own web server, operating system, compiler, database... But their customer are unlikely to see any benefit from that, which is why they find themselves with an incentive to improve open source software. That’s the reason big open source projects attract large corporate sponsorship, not to satiate the ideological motives of “top talent”.
It's... so fast! You click a link and BOOM the page loads. Sad that that experience isn't ubiquitous across the web anymore.
> Now the 'Dumb Money' has figured out the the hedge funds'rigged game.

After everyone threw a ton of money into the market the hedge funds control. “Dumb money” doesn’t feel like an inappropriate nickname.
> Isn't this theft, [...] presuming the user wasn't buying on margin

Yes. It's also murder for hire, presuming that they contracted with someone to have the user executed.

Honestly, I'm not sure why you would assume that this wasn't a case of buying on margin since the forced liquidation is STANDARD for buying on margin and the user (however reliable they may or may not be as a source) didn't even say that it wasn't bought on margin.
Yes that's totally true. But first Google doesn't really portray themselves as a "Privacy respecting" alternative. And second, it's not because other companies are doing similar abusive things that we should praise and thanks Apple.

The title should be more like "At last, after years of using it, Apple finally remove the abusive cross-app tracking that other companies still use", but not "Thank you Apple".
If everyone in the U.S. would buy only one share of GME, that would probably be enough to screw a few billionaires.
The sells were appropriate if bought on margin (once the share price took a dive). The thing is, RobinHood refused “buy” order that were completely inline with the margin requirements, and that caused the share price to dive.

Seems to be a coordinated move among all retail browsers (including IB according to people on this discussion - despite publicly claiming they are just hiking margins).

Basically, as of this morning, retail clients could only sell, whereas institutional clients could buy and sell as they wish.

Doesn’t sound remotely ok. In fact, sounds completely entirely not ok, and likely illegal (but I am not a lawyer)
What kind lazy non-comment is this?

I didn't talk about any actions of any brokers yesterday or hedge funds yesterday, and besides, do you think a hedge fund has a HN account?

-

Also, hate rationale discussion much? You couldn't refute a single thing I said, the brokers can do something that: I don't like, was self-serving, and good for shorts... but was also the least damaging call for retail... all at the same time.

It sounds like you're taking a bath because you didn't respond to the most blatant sell signal I've ever seen in my life and looking at someone to lash out at...

Pro tip for next time: If your plan works because people are buying and holding... if they can't buy it's probably going to go south.

It was a lose lose situation, the point of halting buys is to stop the pump... if it didn't stop the pump they would have halted the stock.

In fact if GME breaks out and doubles again count how long until it gets halted period for an "investigation".

Everyone was playing musical chairs and the music stopped. Don't get mad at me because you didn't try and find a seat.
This is fundamentally because the risk-reward incentive structure is absolutely broken right now. If your lab expects productivity and transformative science (basically if you get a Nature paper every month that will be good!) then something will give.

And this rot starts all the way from funding agencies (NIH/NSF/DOE) who have become hardcore bean counters.
The one thing does not exclude the other.
I definitely support the notion of moving from platforms to protocols, at least in theory. I do think you're going to run into the need to regulate wherever communication starts impinging on not-purely-informational constructs, like securities.

I really hope that gambling on GME is not a "major part" of a significant number of people's lives.
Well that's just not true at all. Being a private company doesn't magically exempt one from things like laws and regulatory oversight and all the rest of that.
TikTok vulnerability left users' private information exposed
This is a pet peeve of mine about star ratings.

Visually, allowing 1 to 5 stars inflates the way ratings look, because the first star is always present, even for the worst products.

Imagine if it was pie chart or a bar chart: the lowest rating would look like 20%, not 0%.

Or imagine a product where 50% of people gave it the lowest rating (1 star) and the rest gave it the highest rating (5 stars). This would be presented as a 3/5 star item, which visually appears quite a bit better than its real rating (50%).
Ostensibly not enough faith in security tokens as a method of managing shares. Still surprising from a strategic angle considering an acquisition of a platform like Carta could have given them a head start.
If you're not familiar with him, Nathan Myhrvold is the (in)famous patent troll behind Intellectual Ventures:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures
Literally just google the sentence I posted, it's been reproduced on a number of reputable outlets.
>Melvin doesn't have a short position anymore.

This makes no sense, if gme isn't shorted then why then break the law and restrict buying it?

And it does feel like they are restricting buys. Seems unlikely that all the trading platforms that rely on citadel coincidentally decided they wanted to hedge against volatility by restricting user buys.
Well done. I’ve added this to my own bookmarking tool. :-)

https://www.curabase.com/org/curabase/bookmark-managers

Lots of room for multiple winners in this space because there are so many ways to solve niche use cases.

best of luck!
That's a good point. I'm using partial refresh for this reason, which works quite well because the screen is relatively static (I do a full refresh after 4 partial refreshes, to remove the minor ghosting that does occur). But if your dashboard shows a lot of different content you'll have to do full refreshes, which on the Kindle at least also cause a flash.
I can't believe I'm reading a comment that good on HN in 2021 :)

It's refreshing. Yes, the CCP is not about evil - and the top comment nailed it: Ma was encouraging change that was too fast and potentially damaging.

China has being doing great, following a path that the West disapprove. Maybe the West should give the benefit of doubt, giving the track record of success in real world execution.
From what I understand, they are allowing selling shares, just restricting purchasing shares. That is what makes this market manipulation. A market freeze would block all transactions.
> From Citadel's perspective, why on earth would they assume the short positions? They're in the red. That is Melvin's investors' problem. The second-order problem, that of avoiding a fire sale of remaining assets, is what the bailout prevented.

Because:

> With respect to Melvin, I'm blown away that these trades were executed as unhedged shorts.

Because that ^ will take down a prime, and if it's your prime because you're buddies with your mentee... no sir. And to cap it off, dominos fall everywhere because of the Index Fund phenomenon if there's no longer 'liquidity' from these guys.

Side note: You're smart as hell, I can tell from the few times we've interacted on this forum, and I appreciate the thoughtful responses. We need to figure out a way to trade info and get a beer.

Edit: this could become a run on the banks, but instead it would be a run on equities... which is equity cost of capital worse than just withdrawing your dollars.
@Kranar exactly. the actions of the gme swarm are reasonable given the positions and the patterns of actions we all recognize from short sellers. until now, short sellers have pretty much been playing a game of poker where no one ever called their bluff. Of course, the short sellers that lost out on this can just blame it on covid and get bailed out.
Yes. Still better than not disappearing completely. You can only do so much when you're on control of a uber God.
There are other mechanisms for profiting off stocks losing value (eg put options) that don’t impact pricing like shorts do.
There was a relevant document posted earlier today at this link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25942632.

"Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech (2019)"

Article subtitle:

> Altering the internet's economic and digital infrastructure to promote free speech

I am somewhat skeptical of crypto, but I do hope that the DeFi ecosystem, 20 years in the future, will act as a democratizing force for financial markets.
IDFA was actually a privacy improvement at the time it was introduced. Previously (before 2012), apps/advertisers would use UDID and/or fingerprinting to uniquely identify a phone in a way that the user could not avoid. Access to the UDID was removed and fingerprinting was forbidden; in exchange, the new IDFA provided the desired identifier while allowing customers to reset it on demand.

https://www.adcolony.com/blog/2020/09/02/what-is-an-idfa-any...
Vulnerability? Or design feature?
This part's the best, full page ad chockfull of humor
http://www.tamaleking.com/page8.html
How We Develop AI for 510(k)-Cleared Devices
I think because we are dealing with sentiments. There would be a price point that will trigger a run-off but it still seems to be sustained by the "fuck you" message and playing chicken.

The problem here is that game theory completely mess the incentives, everyone needs to play chicken (or buy out the ones selling) or everyone loses on potential profit. But if just a few people trigger a sell out, everyone loses.

It's a very strange Mexican stand-off and my take is that is held, for now, by anger and excitement to see what happens when the shorts have to cover. When the shorts start buying and driving the price up we will see how many are able to hold (and up to what point).

This is quite fascinating to me, game theory would predict this shouldn't have happened with so many different players with conflicting interests.
I’m honestly very confused why people keep trying to draw a parallel between Parler and Robinhood. Beyond “big companies can do whatever they want” there really isn’t much in the way of comparison. And big companies doing what they want is something we’ve known about since around the time big companies first started to exist.
> For anyone actually affected by Robinhood, I think leaving 1-star rating it is absolutely just.

Given the claims that (various high percentages above 50%) of RH users had one of these meme stocks, that should still drive the rating to 1-star.

Especially if you also count everyone as "affected" who bought through another broker and who saw those shares plummet once RH destroyed retail "investor" (read: gambler) demand.
I don't know how stocks work.

Could you explain how it's possible to stop buying and allow selling? In order to execute a sell order, there would have to be a corresponding buy order? Do they do this by allowing new buy / sell orders, but only if they're at a lower price?
Pure-function analysis is not that hard. If you want the easy one, it is a pretty straightforward local analysis. If you want the hard stuff you need a sound call graph and some fix-point computation over the whole program, but it is still achievable.

The thing that is valuable here is the existence of pure functions, not necessarily the requirement. For a huge number of real programs written in java or whatever the exact same technique applies.
UPDATE - The server is now back up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25948101
I've been reading WSB since yesterday and while I understand the outrage about blocking trading. They started blocking trading with $GME trading in the $400's, and a slew of redditors on WSB, Discord & Telegram pushing penny stocks. It started out a crusade against the hedge fund shorting $GME and quickly turned into rallying dumb money to pump and dump penny stocks. Looking at the direction things were going it seems like Robinhood acted responsibly in cutting off the buys of AMC, BB, NOK, etc. They're all stocks that have been propped up artificially in the last 48 hours based on the hype and attention generated by the Gamestop story.

No one serious thinks Gamestop stock is worth $400+. Robinhood cut off buying at the point when unsophisticated investors were caught up in a stampede to "stick it to the man." Seems like they did the right thing.
Sweden, for example, has much better safety nets and better income equality than the US, and is rated as being much easier than the US to start a business.

Essentially, Swedes have far greater economic freedom due to greater economic equality. Despite not having UBI.
"Those not comfortable
with toxic language should pretend this is a religious text."

I love it.
> why should market making organizations be allowed to take the upsides involved in their position but be able to avoid the downsides by just not doing the job they signed up for when they feel the risk is too high?

This is a great question.

Short answer: they shouldn't. When a market maker signs up to make markets on an exchange, they commit–contractually–to providing quotes in good times and bad. Payment for order flow contracts can vary, and I don't know what Robinhood's terms are, but they typically carry a similar requirement.

There are reasonable exceptions. If your systems are having issues with a stock, e.g. the intern entered a dividend wrong into the database, you can declare "self help" and stop quoting for some time. This is occasionally abused. But exchanges are decent at policing it.

In this case, though, yes--a lot of market makers made a ton of money, got scared, shrugged and then put their hands up. (Again, caveated to Robinhood's agreements.) Fortunately for them, the crowd has been distracted by this Ken Griffin called Robinhood to screw over /r/wsb story, so they won't get much more than a slap on the wrist.
How do you ensure that your services will be up in the event of an AWS outage?
I think they should lose that yoke, it's not a plane. And sell a model with ultra long range, there are some who don't care how fast it can go as long as it can go as far as possible with out needing to recharge. Electric Cannonball Run, anyone?
> Virtually all trading platforms have blocked users from opening positions on these symbols.

Can you be more specific? Robinhood & Webull are the only two that I'm aware of.
ADT Security Camera Flaws Open Homes to Eavesdropping
Brigaded. They are toast. Everyone I know with a RH account is going to close it.
>I would argue that compensating developers for building software is the wrong way to look at it. IBM (and possibly Red Hat?) are mostly consulting companies---the development work they pay for is in support of their consulting.

Red Hat is not a consulting company. According to the Q1 FY2020 financial statements, "Subscription revenue in the quarter was 87% of total revenue." which means consulting is somewhere in that leftover 13% (categorized as "services").

What you perhaps mean, is that the number of kernel developers, gcc developers, glibc developers, (and so on) they have on staff is a benefit in terms of providing good support. In that sense, if a customer has an issue and need support, the "development work" does benefit the ability to provide that service. I wouldn't call that consulting though.
Static analysis updates in GCC 11
Chrome 89 Beta: Advanced Hardware Interactions, Web Sharing on Desktop, and More
That seems less-and-less true as time goes on. Many brokers are not allowing users to buy GME even if their UX implies you can.
I believe David can. If there is one industry in which a challenger can overthrow the incumbent, it is software.
Every case I've seen where they've closed out a position, it was on margin, which makes it perfectly acceptable to do. I do not agree with Robinhood's actions today, but this is a very important distinction versus closing out a position that someone took out with cash.
DevOps: Terraform, Spinnaker, and Psychologically Safe Science (Armory YC W17)
At the risk of sounding like an "I told you so" type of person, it is frustrating to speak out and see others speak out about future consequences of these kinds of actions, only to be drowned out by people liberally applying the slippery slope fallacy argument.
Well, once the gov cracks down on ISPs game over. No way we can have a grassroots internet without the ISPs.
I must have misremembered then. There are so many recordings of Nixon saying offensive things that I can't keep them all straight.
> it does not make progress

FUD. Making statements like this totally discounts the healthy and vibrant communities that exist today making use of open protocols. Either your head is in the sand or you have an interest in stalling those systems from taking root.

I got news for you though. The genie is out of the bottle, and there's no putting it back inside.
You can believe everything they put in writing. You just have to read it correctly.
Ball Arithmetic (2020)
Mimecast Confirms SolarWinds Hack as List of Security Vendor Victims Snowball
Does the four month vacation at Lake Laogai enter into this picture anywhere?